Re: [Terminology] Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards (NISTIR 8366)

[[e-mail]]

On 01.05.2021 12:07, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>>> I think this document is better than anything we are likely to come 
>>> up with on
>>> our own, and it would align our practices with other SDOs, so I 
>>> encourage us to
>>> adopt it and turn our attention to other issues of IETF culture.
>> 
>> Totally agree.  Glad to see emerging consensus for this.  Lars, how do 
>> we make that happen, procedurely?
> 
> I partially agree.  It is good in its content and forum EXCEPT it 
> refers
> to what we know to be unpublished drafts of the IETF, the fact that it
> appears to have used such input is bothersome to me.  The fact that it
> published such references in a standards document is beyond me.
> --
> Rod Grimes                                                 
> [e-mail]

I pretty much agree with the agreements above, including that I am 
tolerant about NIST's letting users know about some un- or semi-official 
discussions.  But I see a pigeonhole or two not fully swept out.

The NIST expliticly says it is "guidance" for NIST internal staff, not a 
standard.  The TERM WG draft charter says to align efforts with broader 
activities in the industry.  So working within that spirit of friendly 
cooperation it seems fine not to create more words to be read, but 
instead just mention (1)the NIST as a reputable source of specific 
guidance, and (2)the Chicago _Manual of Style_ for general guidance.  
For that, someone--the RFC Editor?--has to aggree this is a good idea, 
if they will be the one(s) to initiate and maintain the slight addition 
to their responsibility.

But I haven't seen any discussion of failure paths.  Being extra 
cautious given the specific issue involved, which has developed over a 
lllooonnnggg period of complaints, it might be worth explicitly 
discussing who would be responsible for handling any complaints.  If 
IETF were to receive any, would they just shuttle them over to NIST?  To 
who at NIST?  By what process of "shuttling"?  And so on.  Would there 
end up being significant delay involved?  So alternatively, maybe a TERM 
WG should exist just to maintain an RFC which would include the two 
references (to NIST and to CMOS), and end with a "<...> is the 
responsible contact for the RFC".  If it turns out there are no 
complaints or questions, then it isn't taking much time from anyone.  If 
however it would take a lot of time, maybe better to have a separate 
TERM RFC and save time for the ITEF RFC Editor.

But either way efficiently covers all the "effective terminology"s in 
the WG draft, and shows how efficiently to provide high quality guidance 
as requested.  RFCs are available to the public, and the public is more 
or less always in IETF's awareness, but the TERM product itself is 
specifically *responsible* only for what IETF needs for internal 
workings, and should not include any of the polemics that have gotten 
the world to this point.